ARTICLE IN PRESS

Water Accounting for Integrated

Water Resources Management:
Experiences and
Recommendations
Andrea Momblanch*, 1, María Pedro-Monzonísx, Abel Solera{ and
Joaquín Andreu{
*Cranfield Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, Cranfield, United Kingdom
x
Global Omnium, Valencia, Spain
{
Instituto de Ingeniería Hidr
aulica y Medio Ambiente, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
1
Corresponding author: E-mail: andrea.momblanch-benavent@cranfield.ac.uk

Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Water Accounting Methodologies 5
2.1 System of Economic-Environmental Accounting for Water 5
2.1.1 Description of Structure and Content 5
2.1.2 Summary of Applications and Implications for IWRM 6
2.2 Australian Water Accounting Standard 12
2.2.1 Description of Structure and Content 12
2.2.2 Summary of Applications and Implications for IWRM 15
2.3 Application in a Water Resource System 16
3. The Role of Water Accounting in IWRM 27
4. Recommendations for Water Accounting Applications 28
5. Conclusions 31
Acknowledgments 32
References 32

Abstract
The economic efficiency and the social component in the use of water are important
pillars for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Water accounting is
considered a useful tool to promote efficiency and transparency and can potentially
support IWRM. The two most applied water accounting methodologies are analyzed,
applied, and compared on this regard. The System of Economic-Environmental
Accounting for Water (SEEA-Water) is more related to the economic component and
can be used to support efficient water allocation policies to define the price of the
resource in water markets/banks and schemes for the recovery of costs of water
Advances in Chemical Pollution, Environmental Management and Protection, Volume 3
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.
j
ISSN 2468-9289
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apmp.2018.08.001 All rights reserved. 1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 Andrea Momblanch et al.

services. The Australian Water Accounting Standard (AWAS) focuses on water availabil-
ity, water use rights, supply commitments, the abstractions from the environment, and
the subsequent discharges. That makes it useful to support governance and for water
use control. Despite their many applications, these water accounting methodologies
are not systematically applied and used to inform IWRM. We provide recommendations
to foster water accounting application including bottom-up implementation, capacity
building, and the nested application of SEEA-Water and AWAS that ensure the feasi-
bility of water accounting implementation at the IWRM level through data production
and transmission chains.

Keywords: AWAS; Efficiency; SEEA-Water; Transparency; Water accounting; Water

management

1. INTRODUCTION
In a context of growing pressure on water resources and high uncer-
tainty on future water availability, planning and management decisions are
increasingly complex. Not only water is essential to cover basic needs for
humans (i.e., drinking water and food production) and the environment
that underpins them (i.e., freshwater ecosystem services) but also it is a
key factor for the economic development of diverse sectors with conflicting
interests as regard of water use. The Integrated Water Resources Manage-
ment (IWRM) paradigm is considered a good approach to deal with that
complexity.1,2 It proposes the utilization of water and land resources in a
coordinated way to support economic and social development without
compromising environmental sustainability.3 This paradigm, which is
conceptualized in Fig. 1, recognizes that water management is a key aspect

Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of IWRM.4

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 3

since human intervention is the trigger for all trade-offs and conflicts around
water. IWRM highlights the influence of catchment management on water
quantity and quality of water sources, as well as the need to preserve the
natural capital for future generations. The economic efficiency in the use
of water and the consideration of human perception and preferences are
also important pillars for IWRM.
Notwithstanding the relevance of the physical aspects of IWRM, the
search for more equitable and efficient use of water stresses the importance
of socioeconomic components. Water management is considered a social,
economic, and political issue rather than just technical. Hence, there is a
need to increase the stakeholder involvement in water management,1 which
has been translated into legal requirements for public participation and trans-
parency in water governance.5,6 The value of water, the opportunity costs of
its allocation, or the costs of making it available should be known and recog-
nized in order to incentivize water use efficiency,7 which is why these
concepts have also been addressed in international legislation.5,8 The imple-
mentation of those legal requirements calls for making information about
water publicly available in a clear and accessible way.9 In this sense, water
accounting emerges as a useful tool to promote efficiency and transparency
in water resource planning and management.10
Water accounting represents a way of compiling water balances in a
defined domain, including natural and water use components, with a
standard presentation format and certain periodicity.9 The first example of
standardized water accounting was developed in France in the early
80s,11,12 linked to the broader concept of environmental accounts. It con-
sisted of a set of double-entry tables presenting water stocks and (natural
and managed) flows in a way that enables the correspondence between nat-
ural water cycle concepts and the economic data presented in the National
Accounts.13 The ultimate purpose of these water accounts was, therefore,
understanding the impact of water use and management on the economic
sector.7 The methodology was shortly adopted by the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development14 and deployed in European
countries such as the Netherlands15 or Spain.16 The United Nations Statis-
tical Department took over the task of further refining the methodology,
giving rise to the System of Economic-Environmental Accounting for
Water (SEEA-Water).17 SEEA-Water is the most widespread water
accounting standard nowadays9 with many applications across the world
at national18,19 and river basin scales.10,20e25 Yet, many research projects
have been granted by the European Commission,26 and acquisition tools
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 Andrea Momblanch et al.

have been developed to implement water accounts in line with SEEA-

Water.20,23
There are other typologies of water accounting, which shift away from
the economic approach and only focus on the quantitative accounting of
water. These methodologies adopt a structure similar to financial accounting
for the presentation of water data. The International Water Management
Institute proposes a water accounting methodology (WAþ)27 that describes
the status of water resources and the productivity of their use (in physical
terms) based on global scale public datasets. This water accounting frame-
work is supported by independent international institutions such as Food
and Agricultural Organization and IHE Delft Institute for Water Education,
which aim at providing audited information to support decision-making and
international agreements in relation to water use. Recent examples of the
application of WAþ have been published for the Okavango,28 Indus,29
Awash,30 and Ca31 river basins, although other nonpublished works exist
for river basins such as the Nile, Litani, and Upper Mekong.32
Another example of physical water accounting is the Australian Water
Accounting Standard (AWAS), which has been implemented and published
annually since 2010 in the main urban regions (i.e., Sydney, Melbourne,
Adelaide, Canberra, Perth, and South East Queensland) and river systems
in Australia (i.e., MurrayeDarling, Burdekin, Daly, and Ord). They were
first created to provide water markets with control and information systems
to maintain public and investors’ confidence about the amount of water
being traded for consumptive and environmental uses.33 The AWAS
contemplates the implementation of water accounts by diverse entities
like water supply companies, irrigation associations, and river basin man-
agers. Despite the fact that the AWAS is meant to be applied in Australia,
there are some examples of its application in Spain9 and South Africa34
that successfully tested the transferability of the methodology.
With substantial investments made for the creation of standards and a sig-
nificant critical mass of application, water accounting must be a central
element in nowadays water governance. However, it does not seem to
have been assimilated in the everyday functioning of water management
institutions. This raises some unavoidable questions:
What is the real use of water accounting information nowadays? Has water
accounting potential to support IWRM? What could be changed to incentivize
its use?
In this chapter, we address these questions by describing in detail the
main water accounting methodologies and analyzing existing applications.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 5

We also identify the differences between accounting methodologies in

capturing information about water resource systems functioning and, there-
fore, their potential contribution to IWRM. Finally, we make recommen-
dations on how to promote the use of water accounting as a tool to support
IWRM.

2. WATER ACCOUNTING METHODOLOGIES

To answer the questions previously mentioned, we should first under-
stand what the different water accounting typologies propose and analyze
their current state of application. The WAþ and AWAS methodologies
are rather similar in their approach, but the AWAS is more successful in
its application as it is regularly implemented in Australia. Moreover, it
proposes complementing the water accounts with additional details
(described later), which can be especially useful to improve their informative
power. Thus only the SEEA-Water and AWAS are described in the
following.

2.1 System of Economic-Environmental Accounting for

Water
2.1.1 Description of Structure and Content
The SEEA-Water framework considers the flows between the environment
and the economy. The inland water resource system is comprised of surface
water, groundwater, and soil water; in relation to the economy, it is
represented by abstractions, imports, exports, and returns of the most rele-
vant economic agents (such as households, the industry involved in the
collection, treatment and discharge of sewage, the industry involved in
the collection, treatment and supply of water to households, other industries
which use water in their production process, and the rest of the world). It
covers five categories of accounts17: (1) physical supply and use and emission
accounts (representing the amount of water used and discharged back into
the environment and the amount of pollutants added to water); (2) hybrid
and economic accounts (linking to the economic aspects of water with
the physical supply and use data); (3) asset accounts (representing a water
balance and measuring stocks and their changes due to natural causes and
human activities); (4) quality accounts (indicating the stock of water in terms
of its quality); (5) valuation of water resources. We will focus on physical
supply and use tables as well as on asset accounts, leaving aside the monetary
terms and water quality as they have been much less applied.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 Andrea Momblanch et al.

The physical use table (Table 1) is divided into two parts: the first part
describes flows from the environment to the economy (such as water
abstraction) and the second part describes flows within the economy (such
as water received from other economic units). Likewise, the physical supply
table (Table 2) is divided into two parts: the first part describes the flows of
water within the economy (such as the supply of water to other economic
units), and the second part describes flows from the economy to the
environment (such as returns of water into the environment). Note that
the classification of industrial economic activities traditionally used in
SEEA-Water is the International Standard Industrial Classification of All
Economic Activities (ISIC),35 described in the following.
1. ISIC divisions 1e3, which include agriculture, forestry, and fishing;
2. ISIC divisions 5e33 and 41e43, which include mining and quarrying,
manufacturing, and construction;
3. ISIC division 35: electricity, gas, steam, and air-conditioning supply;
4. ISIC division 36: water collection, treatment, and supply;
5. ISIC division 37: sewerage; and
6. ISIC divisions 38, 39, and 45e99, which correspond to the service
industries.
The water asset accounts (Table 3) measure stocks at the beginning and at
the end of the accounting period and record the changes in stocks that occur
during that period due to natural causes (precipitation, evapotranspiration)
and human activities (abstractions, returns). On the other hand, the matrix
of flows (Table 4) describes exchanges of water between water resources,
providing information on the origin and destination of flows in the territory.
It assists in identifying the contribution of groundwater to the surface flow as
well as the recharge of aquifers by surface runoff.

2.1.2 Summary of Applications and Implications for IWRM

The need for detailed knowledge about the temporal and spatial evolution
of the different components of the hydrological cycle and the flows between
them drives SEEA-Water implementation. The applications undertaken to
date recognize the adequacy of hydrological and water allocation models for
building asset accounts and physical supply and use tables.20,22,25 Some
authors agree with the fact that from the water planning and management
point of view, the incorporation of all this information is questionable
due to the fact that there are some variables such as precipitation or evapo-
transpiration, which distort the main uses in the river basins.36
 Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management
Table 1 Physical Use Table (hm3)
Industries (by ISIC Categories)
5e33, 38, 39, Rest of
1e3 41e43 35 36 37 45e99 Total Households the World Total

ARTICLE IN PRESS
From the 1. Total abstraction
environment (¼1.a þ 1.b ¼ 1.i þ 1.ii)
1.a Abstraction for own use
1.b Abstraction for distribution
1.i From water resources:
1.i.1 Surface water
1.i.2 Groundwater
1.i.3 Soil water
1.ii From other sources
1.ii.1 Collection of
precipitation
1.ii.2 Abstraction from the
sea
Within the 2. Use of water received from
economy other economic units
3. Total use of water (¼ 1 þ 2)

7
 8
Table 2 Physical Supply Table (hm3)
Industries (by ISIC Categories)
5e33, 38, 39, Rest of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1e3 41e43 35 36 37 45e99 Total Households the World Total

Within the economy 4. Supply of water to other

economic units of which:
4.a Reused water
4.b Wastewater to sewerage
To the environment 5. Total returns (¼5.a þ 5.b)
5.a To water resources
5.a.1 Surface water
5.a.2 Groundwater
5.a.3 Soil water
5.b To other sources
6. Total supply of water (¼4 þ 5)

Andrea Momblanch et al.

7. Consumption (¼3e6)
Table 3 Water Asset Accounts (hm3)

Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management

EA.131 Surface Water
EA.1311 EA.1312 EA.1313 EA.1314 Snow, Ice, EA.132 EA.133 Soil
Reservoirs Lakes Rivers and Glaciers Groundwater Water Total

1. Opening stocks
Increases in stocks
Returns from the
economy

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Precipitation
Inflows
from upstream
territories
from other resources
in the territory
Decreases in stocks
Abstraction
Evaporation/Actual
evapotranspiration
Outflows
to downstream
territories
to the sea
to other resources in
the territory
Other changes in volume
2. Closing stocks

9
 10
Table 4 Matrix of Flows Between Water Resources (hm3)
EA.131 Surface Water
Outflows to Other

ARTICLE IN PRESS
EA.1311 EA.1312 EA.1313 EA.1314 Snow, EA.132 EA.133 Soil Resources in the
Reservoirs Lakes Rivers Ice and Glaciers Groundwater Water Territory

EA.1311 reservoirs
EA.1312 lakes
EA.1313 rivers
EA.1314 snow, ice, and
glaciers
EA.132 groundwater
EA.133 soil water
Inflows from other
resources in the territory

Andrea Momblanch et al.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 11

Other results proposed by the SEEA-Water approach are the hybrid and
economic accounts, which aim to describe the supply and use of water-
related products in monetary terms. As noted by United Nations Statistics
Division,17 these tables try to identify:
1. Costs associated with their production;
2. Income generated by their production;
3. Investment in water-related infrastructure and the maintenance costs;
and
4. Fees paid by the users for water-related services, as well as the subsidies
received.
The greatest challenge posed by hybrid accounts is that the required in-
formation is often not available, as it is traditionally presented at administra-
tive scale and in natural years, not in hydrological years. On the other hand,
it requires such amount of information that makes difficult its application.
According to this, some authors propose the valuation of water services as
in the study by Pedro-Monzonís,10 instead of hybrid use and supply ac-
counts, improving the implementation of monetary accounts at water
resource system scale where most of the economic information in the hybrid
accounts is missing.
The application of SEEA-Water can be understood as a finalist work or
as a source of information to develop different activities. In the latter case,
Borrego-Marín et al.24 propose to use the SEEA-Water tables to standardize
the estimation of the cost recovery ratio analysis in line with Water Frame-
work Directive in order to obtain comparable figures among the different
countries or river basin districts. This approach would improve the present
disordered situation due to the different methodologies applied and the lack
of comparability of the results. This approach was applied to the Guadalqui-
vir River Basin in Spain and, although it does not resolve all existing issues, it
raises the need for a general consensus on how to measure environmental
and resource costs.
Pedro-Monzonís36 proposes the application of Water Exploitation In-
dexes (WEIs) based on water accounting in order to assess the degree of stress
suffered in the river basin. This research links the total volume of water ab-
stractions and the origin of the water resources, which are abstractions from
surface water, groundwater, reused water, desalination, or transfers from
other river basins districts. This approach was applied to the J
ucar River Ba-
sin in Spain. Another way to present these results is to organize the water
exploitation systems (or at river basins or regional scale) according to their
WEI.37 As noted by Communication and Information Resource Centre
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 Andrea Momblanch et al.

for Administrations Business and Citizens,38 values of WEI less than 20%
represent no stressed river basins, values of WEI between 21% and 40% indi-
cate stressed river basins, and values of WEI higher than 40% represent
extreme water-stressed river basins. This research adds a new term to the
previous classification; this is the condition of unsustainable water stress in
a river basin, defined for values of WEI higher than 100%.
While the majority of the applications have a research motivation,
there are some examples of the adoption of the SEEA-Water to derive
information for the development, planning, and management of water
resources. The initiator was Botswana which in 2006 published the first
water accounts for the country developed by several governmental
agencies.39,40 The application identified water management challenges
such as the spatial mismatch between water availability and demand, the
increasing costs of traditional water supply infrastructures (i.e., reservoirs
and well fields), and underutilization of wastewater among others. To
further develop water accounting and its extension to environmental
accounting, Botswana joined the WAVES initiative,41 which aims at help-
ing countries adopt natural capital accounting and build international
consensus around it.

2.2 Australian Water Accounting Standard

2.2.1 Description of Structure and Content
The Australian proposal for water accounting is based on the financial state-
ments that business companies in Australia use to officially report their activ-
ity. Thereby, it includes a description of the reporting entity, an assurance
statement to certify the validity of the information provided, the water ac-
counts for the reported period (usually 1 year), and additional information
about water management practices or the origin of the data and their errors.
Water accounts are divided into three statements (Table 5). The first one,
S1, shows the water resources owned by the entity (assets) at the beginning
and at the end of the reported period, physically or for vested right, as well as
the commitments contracted to supply water to other entities or final users
(liabilities). Hence, this account summarizes the status of the entity and
shows how it has changed during the reported period. The other two state-
ments provide information that describes the change in the status of the en-
tity. In particular, S2 focuses on the changes in water assets and supply
commitments, while S3 presents physical flows that cause the changes in wa-
ter stocks. From Table 5, it can be observed that S2 and S3 differ very little.
For example, S2 shows the allocation of water and its changes, while S3
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 5 AWAS Statements (Shown in Bold), Accounting Categories (Shown in
Italics), and Concepts (Shown in Normal Font)

Water Assets and Water Liabilities (S1)

Water assets
Reservoirs, lakes, wetlands.
Aquifers
Interregion claim on water of another entity
Water liabilities
Water allocation remaining
Remaining interregion claims of the entity
Changes in Water Assets and Water Liabilities (S2)
Water asset increases
Precipitation
Runoff
Groundwater recharge
Surface-groundwater flows
Returns from demands
Transfer of interregion claim on water of another entity
Reusable water
Increase of interregion claim on water of another entity
Water liability decreases
Allocation adjustments
Decrease of interregion claim on water of the entity
Water asset decreases
Evapotranspiration
Surface-groundwater flows
Outflows from region
Transfer of interregion claim on water of the entity
Decrease of interregion claim on water of another entity
Water liability increases
Allocation to demands
Allocation increase
Increase of interregion claim on water of the entity
Physical Water Flows (S3)
Water inflows
Precipitation
Runoff
Groundwater recharge
Surface-groundwater flows
Returns from demands
Transfer of interregion claim on water of another entity
Water outflows
Evapotranspiration
Surface-groundwater flows
Outflows from region
Transfer of interregion claim on water of the entity
Supply to demands
Adapted from Momblanch A. Assessment of ecosystem services and water accounting methodologies for integrated
water resources management in water scarce basins [Ph.D. thesis]. Universitat Politecnica de Valencia; 2016.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 Andrea Momblanch et al.

shows the real water supplied. This is due to the application of the accrual
basis of financial accounting in S2 by which increases or decreases in the
water owned by the entity are registered, regardless of them being physical
flows. More detailed information about this water accounting methodology
can be found in the Australian water accounting standard 1 published by the
Bureau of Meteorology.42
It is fundamental for water accounts to preserve the water balances of
demands and other concepts subject to supply commitments such as inter-
region transfers. This means that the water allocated including the adjust-
ments done along the reported period (presented in S2) should be equal
to the supply to the demand (presented in S3) plus any water remaining allo-
cation (presented in S1). Therefore the information in S3 can be fully
derived from the one in the other two statements. To avoid information
redundancy, the S3 could be excluded from the accounting and replaced
by a new table including information that is not explicitly presented in S1
and S2, such as the water consumed by each demand and the returns dis-
charged outside the accounting domain. A proposal of content of the new
water demands table is presented in Table 6.
A remarkable feature of the AWAS is the recognition that water ac-
counting is not an exact science, and it is subject to errors due to inaccuracy
of measurements and/or omissions of water accounting concepts. Thereby,
the AWAS statements include an estimation of the existing global error. It is
calculated from the difference in assets changes obtained from the measure-
ment of stored volumes in S1 and the obtained from the measurement of
flows in S2.

Table 6 New Water Demands Table

Water Demands (S3*)

Water allocation
Water supply
Water supply deficit ()/surplus (þ)
Water return flow in the system
Water return flow outside the system
Water consumption
Adapted from Momblanch A. Assessment of ecosystem services and water
accounting methodologies for integrated water resources management in water scarce
basins [Ph.D. thesis]. Universitat Politecnica de Valencia; 2016.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 15

2.2.2 Summary of Applications and Implications for IWRM

The AWAS is meant to be applied annually to report on the status and
management of the different water-related entities including irrigation asso-
ciations, water supply companies, industrial users, and river basin manage-
ment boards. As mentioned previously, the AWAS has been implemented
in the main urban regions and river systems in Australia since 2010. The
reports are prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology in partnership with
the State and Territory Governments in charge of managing all or part of
the river systems, the water utilities that manage regulated urban water sys-
tems, major water users such as mining companies and thermal electricity
generators, environmental water holders, and other agencies. The historical
record of water accounting reports is publicly accessible in the Water Infor-
mation section of the Bureau of Meteorology webpage.43
These water accounting reports have been adapted and improved over
time to make information clearer and more accessible to users. From the first
official publication in 2010 to the latest report of 2017, for each water
accounting category, their concepts have been aggregated, and their details
included in the supporting information. Also, terminology has been clari-
fied, and graphical summaries of water balances have been added. On the
contrary, the data accuracy in the accounts have not improved; reduction
of the global accounting errors has not been observed for the different
reporting entities. For the MurrayeDarling Basin, the accounting error in
2010 and 2016 is practically the same (just over 1000 hm3), although it fluc-
tuated from 750 hm3 in 2014 to 9,400 hm3 in 2011. The magnitude of the
error shows that limitations still exist in the control of water but that could
not be representative of the overall quality of water accounting implemen-
tation due to the size and complexity of the reporting entity. If we analyze
the accounting error for the urban system of Adelaide, it is much smaller, but
neither shows a clear improvement of accounting accuracy with time (i.e.,
220 hm3 in 2010 to 136 hm3 in 2016).
The increasing sensitivity and awareness of industry toward sustainability
of water use44,45 have brought industry to explore the use of the AWAS for
corporate water management reporting.46 The application of the AWAS to
industrial entities is straightforward since the structure and categories of the
accounts remain unchanged regardless the type of reporting entity, and only
the concepts have to be adapted according to the entity’s functioning and
the information requirements of the users of the water accounts. Particularly,
for the mining industry, Garston et al.46 conclude that the implementation
of the AWAS in the mining sector is feasible as it requires data which is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 Andrea Momblanch et al.

routinely collected under normal operation. They also highlight the benefits
of water accounting since it contributes to data consolidation and storage
into a single system.
As defined in the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework,33 the
potential users of the accounts are water users and stakeholders, investors
in water-dependent enterprises, water-related policy makers, water
managers, water service providers, water industry consultants and regula-
tors, and academics. After more than 7 years of application of the AWAS,
there is no official information about the real use of water accounts by
these agents and the costs and benefits of their implementation. The
only information in that regard is an assessment of the impact of the
AWAS conducted only 2 years after its kick off.47 The report highlights
the potential benefits of its application for the report users in terms of
supporting informed decision-making and improving confidence of users
and investors by providing consistent, comparable and independently
assured water data. Regarding report preparers, the AWAS would reduce
reporting efforts as several reporting obligations could be met with the
AWAS reports, and they could be used to demonstrate responsible
stewardship of water as a public and scarce natural resource. These early
conclusions are in agreement with more recent research,44 which con-
cludes that the application of the AWAS in the mining industry context
provides concise information that summarizes water management and
facilitates comparison across sites and from year to year, while it can reduce
reporting efforts as it addresses the requirements of the reporting entity
and the regulatory bodies.

2.3 Application in a Water Resource System

In order to highlight the differences between the SEEA-Water and AWAS
water accounting methodologies to capture information relevant to IWRM,
we deemed appropriate to show how it would be presented in both of them.
To do so, a simple water resource system is used (Fig. 2), which endures the
following changes over 1 year:
• From the precipitation over the whole system, 37 hm3 fall directly on the
reservoirs, 16 hm3 on the wetland, and 250 hm3 infiltrate and recharge
the aquifer.
• Evapotranspiration from reservoirs is 72 hm3, and 24 hm3 from the
wetland.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 17

River
Canal / Intake / Return
Surface-groundwater flow
Surface runoff U
90 hm3
R1 Reservoir
Urban water demand
Irrigaon demand S
50 hm3 I2 40 hm3
300 hm3 e
X Hydropower plant
a
>63 hm3 Wetland

H 30 hm3
R2 X
Aquifer
350 hm3 >126 hm3
Transfer to I1
another system
Figure 2 Natural and managed components of the studied water resource system.
Volumes represent the initial annual water allocations.

• Surface runoff contributes with 610 hm3, being 200 hm3 produced in
the headwaters of the basin, 260 hm3 and 120 hm3 in the sub-basins
draining to tributaries, and 30 hm3 in the sub-basins contributing to
the wetland.
• Stored volume in reservoir R1 changes from 90 to 85 hm3, while R2
changes from 80 to 72 hm3.
• Aquifer stored volume starts in 4500 hm3 and ends in 4440 hm3, and the
wetland changes from 20 hm3 to 19 hm3.
With regard to the management of the system, the initial annual water
allocations to the different demands and the environment (i.e., environ-
mental flows and wetland inflows) are shown in Fig. 2. Note that the hydro-
power use (H) does not have any water allocated since it only turbines what
is in the river. Some of the initial allocations had to be adjusted along the
year to make up for the dry meteorological conditions while avoiding the
depletion of the system’s reserves. In particular, the allocation to I1 was
reduced in 50 hm3 and in 100 hm3 for I2 at the beginning of the irrigation
campaign but since part of the urban wastewater is reused after its treatment,
the total supply to I2 could be finally increased to 260 hm3. Water scarcity
also forced the reduction of the inter-basin transfer to 45 hm3, meaning that
there is an outstanding commitment at the end of the year that must be
cleared in the next period. The summary of flows in the system is shown
in Fig. 3.
In order to make the regulation and supply of water resources possible,
water services are required which have a monetary cost for the service
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 Andrea Momblanch et al.

200 hm3
20 hm3
U
90 hm3
R1 30 hm3
60 hm3
S
45 hm3 I2 40 hm3
200 hm3 93 hm3 e
a
62 hm3 260 hm3 Wetland
80 hm3
R2 30 hm3
X
Aquifer 50 hm3 73 hm3
300 hm3 163 hm3
120 hm3
Transfer to I1
10 hm3
another system
Figure 3 Final distribution of water flows in the studied water resource system (flows
that are not affected by the management of the system are in italics).

suppliers. Derived from the studied system structure and its management,
those services and their associated costs10 are as follows:
• Supply to urban uses from surface water: 1.38 V/m3
• Collection and treatment of urban wastewater: 0.61 V/m3
• Supply to irrigation demands from:
• Surface water: 0.14 V/m3
• Groundwater: 0.29 V/m3
• Reused water: 0.23 V/m3

All the previously mentioned data are used to fill out the SEEA-Water
and AWAS accounts, including the improvements proposed previously.
They are presented in Tables 7e10 and Tables 11e13, respectively.
From the application of both methodologies to the same system, it can be
concluded that both of them successfully summarize the functioning of the
system with some differences in their approach. They show the variation in
the reserves of the system, the physical flows to satisfy the water demands
and between storage elements. Nonetheless, the SEEA-Water captures
better the flows between storage elements with the matrix of flows within
the environment (Table 8). This table clearly shows the water exchanged
between rivers, lakes, aquifer, and so on, which can be important for the
environmental sustainability of the system. The representation of such flows
in the AWAS is not straightforward since it does not distinguish the balances
by water bodies, but by surface and groundwater. For example, in order to
account for the flow between a river and a wetland (or between two
aquifers), it would have to be recorded as an increase and decrease in surface
water (or groundwater) assets simultaneously. Other interesting information
Table 7 Water Asset Accounts in hm3

Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management

EA.131 Surface Water
EA.1311 EA.1312 EA.1313 EA.1314 Snow, EA.132 EA.133 Soil
Reservoirs Lakes Rivers Ice, and Glaciers Groundwater Water Total

1. Opening Stocks 170.0 20.0 4500.0 4690.0

Increases in stocks
Returns from the 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0
economy

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Precipitation 37.0 16.0 53.0
Inflows
from upstream
territories
from other 572.0 60.0 595.0 0.0 230.0 1457.0
resources in the
territory
Decreases in stocks
Abstraction 290.0 300.0 590.0
Evaporation/actual 72.0 24.0 96.0
evapotranspiration
Outflows
to downstream 45.0 45.0
territories
to the sea 93.0 163.0 256.0
to other resources 215.0 482.0 697.0
in the territory
Other changes in volume
2. Closing stocks 157.0 19.0 4440.0 4616.0

19
 20
Table 8 Matrix of Flows Within the Environment in hm3
EA.131 Surface Water
Outflows to Other

ARTICLE IN PRESS
EA.1311 EA.1312 EA.1313 EA.1314 Snow, EA.132 EA.133 Soil Resources in the
Reservoirs Lakes Rivers Ice, and Glaciers Groundwater Water Territory

EA.1311 Reservoirs 215.0 215.0

EA.1312 Lakes 0.0
EA.1313 Rivers 372.0 30.0 80.0 482.0
EA.1314 Snow, Ice, and 0.0
Glaciers
EA.132 Groundwater 0.0
EA.133 Soil water 200.0 30.0 380.0 150.0 760.0
Inflows from other 572.0 60.0 595.0 0.0 230.0 0.0 1457.0
resources in the territory

Andrea Momblanch et al.

 Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management
Table 9 Physical Supply and Use Table in hm3
Industries (by ISIC Categories)
5e33, 38, 39, Rest of
1e3 41e43 35 36 37 45e99 Total Households the World Total

ARTICLE IN PRESS
From the 1. Total abstraction 500.0 0.0 73.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 663.0 0.0 663.0
environment (¼ 1.a þ1.b ¼ 1.i þ 1.ii)
1.a Abstraction for own 500.0 73.0 573.0 573.0
use
1.b Abstraction for 90.0 90.0 90.0
distribution
1.i From water resources:
1.i.1 Surface water 200.0 73.0 90.0 363.0 363.0
1.i.2 Groundwater 300.0 300.0 300.0
1.i.3 Soil water 0.0 0.0
1.ii From other sources
1.ii.1 Collection of 0.0 0.0
precipitation
1.ii.2 Abstraction 0.0 0.0
from the sea
Within the 2. Use of water received 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 140.0 90.0 230.0
economy from other economic
units
(Continued)

21
Table 9 Physical Supply and Use Table in hm3dcont'd

22
Industries (by ISIC Categories)
5e33, 38, 39, Rest of
1e3 41e43 35 36 37 45e99 Total Households the World Total
3. Total use of water 560.0 0.0 73.0 90.0 80.0 0.0 803.0 90.0 893.0
(¼ 1 þ 2)
Within the 4. Supply of water to 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 60.0 0.0 150.0 80.0 230.0
economy other economic units

ARTICLE IN PRESS
of which:
4.a Reused water 60.0 60.0 60.0
4.b Wastewater to 0.0 80.0 80.0
sewerage
To the 5. Total returns 100.0 0.0 73.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 173.0 0.0 173.0
environment (¼ 5.a þ5.b)
5.a To water resources
5.a.1 Surface water 90.0 73.0 163.0 163.0
5.a.2 Groundwater 10.0 10.0 10.0
5.a.3 Soil water 0.0 0.0
5.b To other sources 0.0 0.0
6. Total supply of water 100.0 0.0 73.0 90.0 60.0 0.0 323.0 80.0 403.0
(¼ 4 þ 5)

Andrea Momblanch et al.

7. Consumption (¼ 3e6) 460.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 480.0 10.0 490.0
Table 10 Water Services Valuation Table in V and hm3
Industries (by ISIC Categories)

Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management

5e33, 38, 39, Rest of
1e3 41e43 35 36 37 45e99 Total Households the World Total

1. Abstraction, storage, 128.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.8 124.2 253.0
treatment and distribution
(million V)
1.a Surface water 28.0 28.0 124.2 152.2
1.b Groundwater 87.0 87.0 87.0
1.c Desalinated water 0.0 0.0

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1.d Reused water 13.8 13.8 13.8
1.c Transfers from other 0.0 0.0
territories
2. Wastewater collection and 0.0 48.8 48.8
treatment (million V)
3. Total water services 128.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.8 173.0 301.8
(million V)
4. Abstraction, storage, 560.0 0.0 (73.0) (90.0) 0.0 0.0 560.0 90.0 650.0
treatment, and distribution
(hm3)
4.a Surface water 200.0 (73.0) (90.0) 200.0 90.0 290.0
4.b Groundwater 300.0 300.0 300.0
4.c Desalinated water 0.0 0.0
4.d Reused water 60.0 60.0 60.0
4.c Transfers from other 0.0 0.0
territories
5. Wastewater collection and (80.0) 0.0 80.0 80.0
treatment (hm3)
6. Total water services (hm3) 560.0 0.0 (73.0) (90.0) (80.0) 0.0 560.0 170.0 730.0

23
Values in brackets represent water volumes handled by water service providers that incur in both costs and benefits related to water and, therefore, cannot be compared with
the final water uses.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 Andrea Momblanch et al.

Table 11 Statement of Water Assets and Water Liabilities in hm3

End of Current End of Previous
Year Year
Water Assets
Surface water assets
Storages
R1 85.0 90.0
R2 72.0 80.0
Lakes and wetlands 19.0 20.0
Groundwater assets
Aquifers 4440.0 4500.0
Total water assets (1) 4616.0 4690.0
Water liabilities
Surface water liabilities
Claims: interregion 5.0 0.0
Total water liabilities (2) 5.0 0.0
Opening net water assets (4) 4690.0
Change in net water assets (5) ¼ (3)e(4) 79.0
Closing net water assets (3) ¼ (1)e(2) 4611.0
Opening water storage 4690.0
Change in water storage (6) 74.0
Closing water storage 4616.0

Table 12 Statement of Changes in Water Assets and Water Liabilities in hm3

Water Assets Increase

In surface water
Precipitation
Into storages
R1 21.0
R2 16.0
Into lakes and wetlands 16.0
Runoff
Into storages (R1) 200.0
Into lakes and wetlands 30.0
Into rivers 380.0
Point return
Irrigation to lakes and wetlands (I2) 40.0
Irrigation to rivers (I1) 50.0
Hydropower to rivers 73.0
Reusable water
From urban returns 60.0
Environmental flows allocation
Flows from rivers to lakes and wetlands 30.0
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 12 Statement of Changes in Water Assets and Water Liabilities in

hm3dcont'd

In groundwater
Recharge from precipitation 150.0
Returns from irrigation (I1) 10.0
Groundwater recharges from surface water
River flow infiltration 80.0
Water liabilities decreases
In surface water
Allocations adjustment
Irrigation (I2) 100.0
In groundwater
Allocations adjustment
Irrigation (I1) 50.0
Total increase in water assets (7) 1306.0
Water assets decreases
In surface water
Evapotanspiration
From storages
R1 39.0
R2 33.0
From lakes and wetlands 24.0
Groundwater recharges from surface water
River flow infiltration 80.0
Outflows from region
To the sea from lakes and wetlands 93.0
To the sea from rivers 163.0
Water liabilities increases
In surface water
Allocation to demands
Urban allocations 90.0
Irrigation allocations (I2) 300.0
Hydropower allocations 0.0
Environmental flows allocation
Flows from river to wetland 30.0
Inter-region claim on water of the entity 50.0
Allocations increase
Irrigation allocations (I2) 60.0
Hydropower allocations 73.0
In groundwater
Allocation to demands
Irrigation allocations (I1) 350.0
Total decrease in water assets (8) 1385.0
Changes in net water assets (9) ¼ (7)e(8) 79.0
Unaccounted for difference ¼ (5)e(9) 0.0
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
26 Andrea Momblanch et al.

Table 13 Demands Table in hm3

Return Return Flow
Water Supply Deficit Flow in the Outside the
Demand Allocation Supply ()/Surplus (þ) System System Consumption

I1 350.0 300.0 50.0 60.0 0.0 240.0

I2 300.0 260.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 220.0
U 90.0 90.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 10.0
H 90.0 90.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 10.0

contained in the physical supply and use table of the SEEA-Water (Table 9)
is the explicit consideration of water supply and wastewater treatment com-
panies as water uses. This provides a more faithful description of the water
use cycle and allows highlighting water reuse in the system. The AWAS
also shows water reuse but as an increase of the water assets of the entity.
This is due to the application of the accrual basis of financial accounting since
reused water is accounted as part of the available resources that can be used in
the system even though it is not a physical inflow. Because of the same finan-
cial basis, the AWAS allows showing the initial allocation of water to
demands and the adjustments that take place along the reporting period to
adapt the supply to water availability. This is very useful to inform water
accounting users about the saving measures undertaken to overcome water
scarcity.
A common feature of both methodologies is the significant size of the
accounts, even though the case of study is relatively simple. Regarding
the AWAS, it is possible to add or remove accounting concepts to adapt
them to the analyzed system by adding/removing rows. This allows the pre-
parer to decide on the level of detail to provide in the accounts by including
each element separately (R1, R2, I1, I2, etc.) or aggregating them by element
type (reservoirs, irrigation demands, etc.). Therefore more complex systems
could produce large accounts which are more difficult to read and interpret
but that can better describe spatial differences across the system. On the
other hand, the SEEA-Water double entry tables always have the same
size no matter the number of elements in the system, but they are not so
adaptable. They always show aggregated values by element type and all
the accounting concepts even if they are not relevant for a specific applica-
tion case. For example, when water accounting is applied to a water resource
system, the volume of water stored in the soil does not provide information
that the users need to understand and evaluate water management since it
is an unmanageable asset. However, it cannot be removed from the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 27

SEEA-Water tables because it is needed to represent the runoff inflows into

the system.
Regarding the economic information shown in Table 10, it refers to the
costs incurred by the service providers which can be public or private entities
depending on the governance scheme in place. Usually, the cost per volume
unit is provided and used to calculate the values in the accounts once the
total volume of water processed is known. The unitary costs can change
considerably between entities and over time.

3. THE ROLE OF WATER ACCOUNTING IN IWRM

Water accounting is closely related to the socioeconomic aspects of
IWRM. In line with its application examples and main purposes, the
SEEA-Water is more related to the economic component. It puts the focus
on the use of water by industrial sectors, which can be linked to the System
of National Accounts. Therefore, in addition to the economic information
contained in the hybrid tables such as the (public and private) cost of water
services and the economic productivity of water,26 the SEEA-Water allows
linking the volume of water abstracted to relevant socioeconomic indicators
such as the Gross Domestic Product or the number of employments of the
corresponding sector. This information can be used to support efficient
water allocation policies considering environmental, social, and economic
aspects, as basis to define the price of the resource in water markets or water
banks, to define schemes for the recovery of costs of public management and
water supply services, and to evaluate potential costs and benefits of new
infrastructures.
On the other hand, the AWAS focuses on water availability, water use
rights, supply commitments, and the subsequent abstraction from and dis-
charges to the environment. It represents the water uses as they intervene
in the water management not only distinguished by sector but by their orga-
nizational and spatial diversity (e.g., municipalities, irrigation associations). It
also provides information to contextualize and justify all the data in the
accounts (e.g., climate, water policies, and calculation errors). Thereby,
when applied to a water resource system the accounts can be used to
describe water management to the public and stakeholders, contributing
to the shared understanding of the main problems and existing trade-offs
among the agents involved and helping them to define their actions based
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
28 Andrea Momblanch et al.

on sound information. That is especially useful to support governance and

for water use control, which links to the social component of IWRM.
The informative power of water accounting methodologies with finan-
cial structure and accounting principles is supported by the general public
which considers them the best way of transmitting water management
information.46,48 The fact that SEEA-Water and AWAS methodologies
are standardized also means that once the terms, definitions, and presentation
structure are known, the understanding and comparison of the information
they provide becomes straightforward. Furthermore, the data contained in
the water accounts are the result of the harmonization of diverse sources
of information and represents a reliable source for scientific and statistical
studies when the methodologies for data collection and processing are
provided.49 Nevertheless, not only water accounting benefits its users but
also the reporting entities that apply it as it helps to identify data deficiencies
and errors and can be used to recognize trends in water resources and
demands if it is applied periodically.9

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER ACCOUNTING

APPLICATIONS
Once the potential of the SEEA-Water and AWAS to support
IWRM has been demonstrated, it is necessary to identify the hurdles for
their implementation. On this basis, we provide recommendations on
how to promote water accounting application and take the maximum
advantage.
Data availability is likely the main drawback of water accounting imple-
mentation. All applications recognize its limitations in the amount,
reliability, and spatial and temporal scale. SEEA-Water uses models to facil-
itate the need data, while AWAS advocates for the use of real records
although it may use models to quantify some accounting concepts such as
groundwater volumes and flows. On the one hand, data from models
have the advantage of being easier to adapt to the temporal and spatial detail
of accounting requirements and ensure that the water balance is closed. On
the other hand, measured data identify data gaps and encourages the
improvement of measurement and control networks. If real measured data
are used, the importance of the bottom-up implementation should be
acknowledged to foster water accounting for IWRM and to ensure high
accuracy of the information. In the case of the AWAS, the fact that it is
only officially implemented at water resource system scale makes very
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 29

difficult to gather all the necessary information to populate the water

accounts with acceptable accuracy. If the AWAS was applied by the diverse
business entities in the water resource system (cities, irrigation associations,
industrial companies, etc.), their reports would contribute to the water
accounts at higher levels creating a cascade effect. Given that the AWAS
entails the preparation of a full report to support the water accounts, the
business entities would include details about the methodologies for data gen-
eration, the water balance error, and they could also add economic informa-
tion about their water supply and disposal costs and their productivity.
The voluntary adoption of water accounting also prevents it from being
fully exploited for IWRM. In spite of being supported by international
institutions, the SEEA-Water is not compiled regularly, and its implemen-
tation remains a sporadic exercise. Obviously, an initial investment is
required for its wide and systematic application. Regarding the reporting
entities, specific training would be needed for the preparation of the
accounts. Likewise, water accounting users should be trained to understand
the principles and content of water accounts. However, there are favorable
signs which indicate that the benefits derived from water accounting would
likely overcome the costs.
Even though the SEEA-Water and AWAS methodologies overlap in
some aspects, they are basically complementary. The AWAS describes the
water management process until it is abstracted, while the SEEA-Water
details the water supply and use chain including wastewater disposal and
the associated costs and benefits. Choosing one or the other would cause
the loss of useful information for IWRM. Both methodologies could poten-
tially be integrated for the purpose of compiling water accounts at water
resource system or river basin scale, which are the recommended scales
for IWRM. Fig. 4 shows a proposed implementation of water accounting
from the business-entity scale up to the water resource system/river basin
scale, which combines both accounting methodologies. The AWAS is
used to collect the detailed information at the low level, in turn, aggregated
at higher levels (i.e., subsystem or sub-basin), and eventually used to compile
the SEEA-Water at water resource system or river basin scale. This nested
application of water accounting would highlight differences in spatial water
management and use efficiencies as well as to detect unaccounted flows.
The proposed framework for the integration of the AWAS and SEEA-
Water must facilitate the acquisition of economic information that makes
possible to populate the Hybrid and supply accounts. However, if the
required data are not available, the water services valuation table is a good
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
30 Andrea Momblanch et al.

Figure 4 Integration of the SEEA-Water and AWAS methodologies in a water resource

system.

alternative since contains the most relevant economic information to esti-

mate the cost of storage, conveyance, and management of water. For the
application of the AWAS, the Flows Account can be replaced by the water
demands table to avoid redundancies and provide additional information.
It is also required that policymakers decide about the approach to deter-
mine water availability at an early stage, either through water balances or
water accounting. These methodological decisions refer to:
• The spatial and temporal aggregation of the tables. There are different
possibilities such as considering monthly or annual values. The latter
also could be referred to an average year, a drought year or a wet year.
• The consideration of environmental flows. Despite environmental
requirements are not explicitly considered in the tables proposed by
the SEEA-Water, some of them can be included in the AWAS if they
require specific water releases. Similarly, the representation of hydro-
power uses in the accounts should be carefully considered as there are
many types of operation some of which require specific water releases
from reservoirs.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 31

• The reliability criteria. Even though they are not considered in the water
accounting approach, water resources allocation and reservation require
them in order to describe if supplies are guaranteed or not. The allocation
supply-deficit relationships shown in AWAS should be representative of
such reliability criteria.
Finally, it is worth stressing that accounting for water flows and volumes
is subject to much more inaccuracy than currency accounting. Thereby, the
water accounts should not aim at being as detailed as financial accounts.
Water accounting should be limited to the stocks and flows of the entity
that can be effectively exploited and managed in order to improve the
significance, clarity, and accuracy of the data provided.9

5. CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, we try to answer some key questions about water
accounting. We summarize here the main conclusions that should help us
understand the current and future status of water accounting as a tool for
IWRM.
What is the real use of water accounting information nowadays?
There are many applications of water accounting at present which have
proved to provide water-related information in a clear and systematic way.
The real use of that information in relation to water governance still
remains obscure though. Despite the existence of powerful frameworks
such as the SEEA-Water and the AWAS, there is a real risk of setting
water accounting aside as a mere sporadic exercise or a water data
repository.
Has water accounting potential to support IWRM?
Throughout this chapter, we have analyzed and discussed the links
between water accounting and IWRM. We conclude that water accounting
is strongly related to IWRM, in particular to the socioeconomic aspects
which are related to public information and participation and to economic
efficiency. The AWAS is more useful to capture the water management
process details and spatial differences and can be easily adapted to different
types and sizes of water entities. On the other hand, the SEEA-Water is
more suitable to summarize the aggregated water flows and stocks, as well
as relating the supply and use of water with their economic costs and
benefits.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
32 Andrea Momblanch et al.

What could be changed to incentivize its use?

We identify the main hurdles for the wide and continuous application of
water accounting and draw some recommendations aimed at incentivizing
its use. We propose that the AWAS is implemented at the lower scale of
water use (by water-related business entities), and it is subsequently scaled
up at higher relevant scales up to the system or basin scale. There, it directly
feeds into the SEEA-Water accounts which summarize the physical and
economic information. This ensures the practical feasibility of water
accounting implementation at the IWRM level through data production
and transmission chain. In this way, all the water accounting potential to
articulate the relationship between water managers and stakeholders, and
across water institutions, can be deployed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of Universitat Politecnica de Valencia through its
Support Programme for Research and Development. They also value the support provided
by the European Commission in financing the project WAMCD (EC-DG Environment No.
07.0329/2013/671291/SUB/ENV.C.1).

REFERENCES
1. Loucks DP, van Beek E. An introduction to methods, models and applications. In:
Loucks DP, van Beek E, editors. Water resources systems planning and management. Paris:
Springer; 2017.
2. Gupta J, Pahl-Wostl C, Zondervan R. “Glocal” water governance: a multi-level
challenge in the anthropocene. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013;5:573e80.
3. Global Water Partnership. Integrated water resources management. Background Rep
2000;4.
4. Momblanch A. Assessment of ecosystem services and water accounting methodologies for inte-
grated water resources management in water scarce basins [Ph.D. thesis]. Universitat Politecn-
ica de Valencia; 2016.
5. European Parliament, Council. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council, of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community action in the field of
water policy. Vol. L 327/1, 2. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Commission;
2000.
6. United Nations Development Programme. Water integrity network. User’s guide on assess-
ing water governance. 2013. p. 1e115.
7. Tilmant A, Marques G, Mohamed Y. A dynamic water accounting framework based
on marginal resource opportunity cost. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2015;19:1457e67.
8. European Commission. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the
council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A blueprint
to safeguard Europe’s water resources. COM. 2012. 673 final. Brussels.
9. Momblanch A, Andreu J, Paredes-Arquiola J, Solera A, Pedro-Monzonís M. Adapting
water accounting for integrated water resource management. The J
ucar Water
Resource System (Spain). J Hydrol 2014;519:3369e85.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Water Accounting for Integrated Water Resources Management 33

10. Pedro-Monzonís M, Solera A, Ferrer J, Andreu J, Estrela T. Water accounting for

stressed river basins based on water resources management models. Sci Total Environ
2016;565:181e90.
11. Margat J. Compte des eaux continentales. Nomenclature, organisation et mode d’emploi des
tableaux comptables (quantité), vol. BRGM 83 SG. Orle
ans: Commission Interministér-
ielle des Comptes du Patrimoine Naturel; 1983.
12. Weber JL. L’articulation des comptes du patrimoine naturel et de la comptabilité économique
nationale. L’example du compte des eaux continentales, vol. 6. Paris: Institut National de
la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques; 1984.
13. European Commission. International monetary fund, organisation for economic Co-operation
and development, united Nations, world bank. System of national accounts 1993. United
Nations Statistic Division; 1993.
14. OECD. Pilot study on inland waters. 1990.
15. Van der Veeren RJHM, Brouwe R, Schenau SJ, Van der Stegen RHM. NAMWA : a
new integrated river basin information system. Voorburg, Netherlands: Central Bureau of
Statistics; 2004.
16. Naredo JM, Gasc
o JM. Cuentas del Agua en Espa~na. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Obras
P
ublicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente; 1996.
17. United Nations Statistics Division. System of environmental-economic accounting for water.
2012. New York: United Nations.
18. Vardon M, Lenzen M, Peevor S, Creaser M. Water accounting in Australia. Ecol Econ
2007;61(4):650e9.
19. Gan H, Wang Y, Lu Q, Vardon M, Changhai Q. Development and application of the
system of environmental-economic accounting for water in China. In: Godfrey JM,
Chalmers K, editors. Water accounting international approaches to policy and decision-
making. Edward Elgar; 2012.
20. Dimova G, Tzanov E, Ninov P, Ribarova I, Kossida M. Complementary use of the
WEAP model to underpin the development of SEEAW physical water use and supply
tables. In: Procedia Engineering, vol. 70; 2014. p. 563e72. 12th International Conference
on Computing and Control for the Water Industry, CCWI2013.
21. Mazzanti B, Bonamini I, Checcucci G, Fiumi L, Consumi F, Bartalesi S, et al. The UN
system for environmental-economic accounts for water (SEEA-W) and groundwater
management: the experience of the Arno river basin authority within the PAWA
project. Ital J Groundw 2014;137(3):73e7.
22. Vicente DJ, Rodríguez-Sinobas L, Garrote L, S
anchez R. Application of the system of
environmental economic accounting for water SEEAW to the Spanish part of the
Duero basin: lessons learned. Sci Total Environ 2016;563e564:611e22.
23. Pedro-Monzonís M, Jiménez-Fern
andez P, Solera A, Jiménez-Gavil
an P. The use of
AQUATOOL DSS applied to the system of environmental-economic accounting
for water (SEEAW). J Hydrol 2016;533:1e14.
24. Borrego-Marín MM, Gutiérrez-Martín C, Berbel J. Estimation of cost recovery ratio
for water services based on the system of environmental-economic accounting for
water. Water Resour Manag 2016;30(2):767e83.
25. Pedro-Monzonís M, Del Longo M, Solera A, Pecora S, Andreu J. Water accounting in
the Po river basin applied to climate change scenarios. Procedia Eng 2016;162:246e53.
26. Environment Directorate-General. Guidance Document No 34 on the application of water
balances for supporting the implementation of the WFDvols. 2015e090. European Commis-
sion; 2015. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC).
27. Karimi P, Bastiaanssen WGM, Molden D. Water Accounting Plus (WAþ) e a water
accounting procedure for complex river basins based on satellite measurements. Hydrol
Earth Syst Sci 2013;17(7):2459e72.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
34 Andrea Momblanch et al.

28. Droogers P, Simons G, Bastiaanssen WGM, Hoogeveen J. Water accounting Okavango.

Coping with water scarcity e developing national water audits Africa. 2010. FAO, Land and
Water Division.
29. Karimi P, Bastiaanssen WGM, Molden D, Cheema MJM. Basin-wide water account-
ing based on remote sensing data: an application for the Indus Basin. Hydrol Earth Syst
Sci 2013;17(7):2473e86.
30. Karimi P, Bastiaanssen WGM, Sood A, Hoogeveen J, Peiser L, Bastidas-Obando E,
et al. Spatial evapotranspiration, rainfall and land use data in water accounting e Part
2: reliability of water accounting results for policy decisions in the Awash Basin. Hydrol
Earth Syst Sci 2015;19(1):533e50.
31. Bastiaanssen WGM, Ha LT, Fenn M. Water accounting plus (WAþ) for reporting water re-
sources conditions and management: a case study in the Ca river basin, Vietnam. 2015.
32. Water Accountingþ, vol. 2016; 2016. http://www.wateraccounting.org/.
33. Water Accounting Standards Board. Water accounting conceptual framework for the preparation
and presentation of general purpose water accounting reports [Internet]. 2014. Available from:
http://www.bom.gov.au/water/standards/wasb/documents/WACF_August09.pdf.
34. Hughes DA, Corral E, Muller NWJ. Potential for the application of general purpose
water accounting in South Africa. In: Godfrey JM, Chalmers K, editors. Water accounting
international approaches to policy and decision-making. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2012.
35. United Nations. International standard industrial classification of all economic activities. Revi-
sion 4. New York: United Nations Statistic Division; 2008.
36. Pedro-Monzonís M. Assessment of water exploitation indexes based on water accounting
[Ph.D. thesis]. Universitat Politecnica de Valencia; 2016.
37. European Environment Agency. The European environment e state and outlook 2005.
2005. Copenhagen.
38. Communication and Information Resource Centre for Administrations Business and
Citizens. In: Informal meeting of water and marine Directors of the European union, Candidate
and EFTA countries. Copenhagen, 4e5 June 2012. Synthesis; 2012.
39. Setlhogile T, Arntzen J, Pule OB. Economic accounting of water: the Botswana
experience. Phys Chem Earth 2017;100:287e95.
40. Environmental Affairs, Centre for Applied Research. Water accounts of Botswana
(1992e2003). July 2006.
41. WAVES. https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/waves/.
42. Bureau of Meteorology. Australian water accounting standard 1: preparation and presentation
of general purpose water accounting reports. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2012.
43. Bureau of Meteorology; 2018. http://www.bom.gov.au/water/nwa/2017/.
44. Hazelton J. Developments in corporate water accounting and accountability. In:
Crowther D, Islam MA, editors. Sustainability after Rio. Emerald; 2015. p. 27e55.
45. Christ KL, Burritt RL. What constitutes contemporary corporate water accounting? A
review from a management perspective. Sustain Dev March 1, 2017;25(2):138e49.
46. Garstone RA, Gill C, Moliere D, Yang D, Bende-Michl U, Fiddes P. Accounting for
water in the minerals industry: capitalising on regulatory reporting. Water Resour Ind
December 1, 2017;18:51e9.
47. Deloitte. Effects analysis of AWAS adoption. Bureau of Meteorology; 2012.
48. Tello E, Hazelton J, Cummings L. Potential users’ perceptions of general purpose water
accounting reports. Account Audit Account J 2016;29(1):80e110.
49. Ansorge L, Dlabal J, Dost
alov
a A. How truthful are water accounting data? J Urban
Environ Eng 2016;10(1):25e34.